In a Tuesday interview in Britain, Sky News editor Adam Boulton asked George W. Bush: “There are those who would say look, lets take Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, and rendition and all those things and to them that is the complete opposite of freedom.”

BUSH: “Of course, if you want to slander America.”

This is the same tripe Bush has been shoveling ever since the Abu Ghraib photos first surfaced in 2004. Anyone who accurately labels Bush’s policies slanders America.

Sadly, there are still some Americans who swallow this crap. Unfortunately, Bush has gotten away with bastardizing American freedom for six years now.

It’s great that a British journalist had the guts to ask Bush the kind of question that American White House correspondents almost never touch. [h/t Think Progress]

I doubt if there really is much point in reacting to this kind of thing from Bush anymore. Anyone that reflects seriously on the matter realzes that with Bush, the Republican Party effectively has ceased to exist and that what you hear from him and from it is the full throated voice of National Socialism and I say that without intending to be hyperbolic in any way. We can be grateful that the Supreme Court just the other day put a stop to the ominous trend toward the throttling of liberty these criminals have instigated. The lesson here is the one the SPD failed to learn in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. And I wouldn’t be too sure that with 2009 we’ll be seeing the last of him. There is always the possibility of the imposition of martial law should some further Reichstag fire be set.

I’m not so sure the SCOTUS “put a stop to” anything. This administration has already indicated that it will simply not implement the decision. And you know what will happen? Somebody will sue them for not implementing the decision; that will go to the Supremes, a new ruling will be issued against the administration, and the administration will simply not implement THAT. That’s what you get when the “opposition” party insists that impeachment is “off the table” no matter what Bush and Cheney do.

Well, you are right about that, Eric. And you will get no impeachment at any time as the “opposition party” to whom you refer will simply feed on the very same executive power this bird arrogated to himself when they get into office. The solution comes when the economic consequences these clowns together have created for us have the people in the streets. I sense that that time is not far off. I would give up on “constitutional means” as a way of righting this situation, we no longer have a constitution. We have an illusion in which the two party apparatus operates as a kind of black hole into which outrage gets funneled. When there are no jobs for all those the education establishment has conned into financing its high priced, effete life-styles, a dollar that no longer operates as the world’s reserve currency, and no further manipulations left to the Bernaches and Berschmakes usually showcased as the wizards that solve such problems, the whole thing just might come tumbling down in a fashion not unlike the GDR or the Czechoslovak Peoples Republic in the late 1980s. But don’t count on the constitution. It doesn’t exist any longer.

One problem (among many) is that the average American is blissfully unaware of what’s going on. I suspect that it’s dawning on many that all is not well, but they haven’t a clue as to the causes or who is responsible for this mess.

They could engage their minds, seek out sites like this and educate themselves, but that would require effort. It’s so much easier to turn on the idiot box and listen to the talking heads chatter.

I also believe that it will take a complete economic meltdown before anything meaningful happens in this country. The parasitic class will milk this for all it’s worth, then leave the rest of us holding the bag. It ain’t going to be pretty.

Bush IS the slander. SCROTUM IS the slander. Congress IS the slander. Well and there’s that torture, rendition, detention, lies, genocide, atrocity, John Yoo, treason, Tom Delay, Republicans, Democraps, Ari Fleischer, Dana the ‘talking Barbie’, Donny Death, John Torquemada Ashcroft, and wow, America is arm pit deep in treacherous slander. The stain on America courtesy of the Bush regime, will take an inordinate number of years to scrub off! “Slander” seems mostly minor compared to the treason.

Bush explicitly demands the power to torture people and deny them any rights; but he also claims that anyone who claims that he is actually *doing* any of these things is an anti-American liar:

“These extraordinary circumstances require that I be given permission to do all these terrible things â€” but of course, if you don’t believe me when I say I’m not doing them, it’s only because you hate America.”

Once the U.S. dollar ceases to be the world currency reserve all hell is going to break loose. Your certainly right. It ain’t going to be pretty. But if this is what it takes to collapse the American empire and put the neoconservatives out of business, so be it.

George Bush is sounding a lot like LBJ. Anybody out there remember when LBJ (like Bush another Texan and a chickenhawk) used to suggest that people who protested against the Vietnam war disaster were “unpatriotic” and not “real” Americans. Slandering the morally bankrupt Bush administration is NOT “slandering” the United States. I guess in Dubya’s “mind” he equates himself with America much like the Prussian aristocracy came to believe they embodied all the “qualities” of being a German.

One is waiting for a major craft union to demand cost of living increases keyed on the price of a barrel of oil.

The Fed’s numbers game is over.

Disattaching oil from the USD might stabilize the currency a bit over the short-term.

Price controls, as with Nixon, don’t work.

Taxes on windfall profits will do nothing for the economy. In order for them to work, they would have to be in the form of instant rebates and in regard to all petroleum-based items, including not only gasoline and diesel, but, just for examples, insecticide and fertilizer.

Nationalizing oil is also almost inevitable. Done rationally it would be put under a National public entity independent of the politicians and providing domestic oil at cost or close to cost, and thus disattached from the world market price, at least while the world market price is above a certain level.

Oil would be both untaxed and not sold at profit.

Oil would still have to be imported, but low cost domestic supplies would help lower the price.

This might provide enough breathing space for economic expansion, and it would moderate inflation and recovery, but it would not solve the currency problem or the weaknesses in the US economic structure described so well, and almost singularly, by Paul Craig Roberts.

With oil at $140 per barrel it is already virtually rationed.

Long term energy policy would still be complex. Corn-based ethanol is economically inefficient and the US does not have the climate, or many climatic areas, where sugar cane can can be grown cheaply and efficiently enough to provide sugar cane-based ethanol, which is seven times more efficient than corn-based.

Nationalizing the oil industry would only (tenuously) make sense IF the USA was self-sufficient in oil supplies. This is anything but true. Also I see no reason why a government owned oil company would be any superior to private enterprise. And where would the money come from to buy out all the oil companies of today? Canada did something in the early 1980’s very similar to what you are advocating (the national energy program). It was an unmitigated disaster. The safest prediction for oil? Higher prices, lowered supplies and more problems.

Sorry, but the notion that anyone can successfully nationalize any industry, let alone something as imperative for a complex economy as oil, is simply laughable. You are, in effect, placing trust in the same band of incompetent boobs who gave us this disastrous foreign policy. See anything wrong with picture?

So forget Bush and his henchmen. Imagine a world where we elect well meaning geniuses who selflessly work night and day planning our lives minus an effective price system and wait for the inevitable collapse. To believe otherwise is what Hayek termed the “fatal conceit.”

Face the obvious: you cannot centrally plan an economy. It fails every single time, and with calamitous results for the people unfortunate enough to be under such a regime. If you doubt my claim, please cite an example to the contrary. You have all of human history to work with.

I guarantee you that even under the best of circumstances, the centrally planned system you think is worth emulating will be riddled with corruption, bribes and other nefarious activities. You are dealing with very flawed human beings, after all.

George should retire to Cumberland, MD. rather than Texas. The Republican Chamber of Commerce would appoint him mayor and the police force would arrest “anti-American” demonstrators who might show up to disrupt his daily bicycle rides. These locals would just be tickled pink to have ol’ George around here, living in one of those big Victorian mansions on Washington St. The heck with all that Abu-Grahaib torture photo stuff–everyone knows that girl was just from nearby Mineral County, West Virginia, anyway. And unlike us, she’s trailer trash. Besides, all those secret service agents will have to live somewhere, and our real estate agents are sooooo professional….

The underlying reason to nationalize oil, however, is not the private companies’ profits (which are concealed to a large degree, and much higher than the %10 claimed save for book-keeping purposes and taxes) but the connection to the currency collapse and the economy.

In fact one is not witnessing a rise in the price of oil so much as a collapse of the dollar.

At any rate, exploration, for high bounties within US controlled territory, would remain private.

Incidentally, Bernanke’s initial response to the credit and real estate collapse, which was to lower interest rates, was either incompetent in the extreme or as corrupt and sinister as is imaginable, which is, after its own fashion, also incompetent in the extreme.

I fully agree that the price rise for crude oil is almost entirely due to the dollar depreciation and the political climate our government has created through its belligerent policies. That is not an argument for nationalization of oil.

I still await your example of a centrally planned scheme that is sustainable and prosperous minus a legitimate price system. You will search high and low and one will not be found.

You want to nationalize a critical commodity essential to a modern economy. If this is feasible, surely it has been accomplished somewhere….right?

You are seeing what an ideologue sees. Read the above more closely with an open mind and actually think perhaps.

Most important politically, nationalization is completely constitutional with compensation.

Taxes and profits on oil from private companies, mostly multinational, go exactly where they have no economic benefits for the United States at the present juncture, and that includes the Federal government.

Eugene, please define ‘a public resource’. Also please demonstrate how Bastiat, who despised the governmental thieves (I repeat myself) of his times, would appreciate the theft that you propose. Love how central planners such as yourself deny your identity, propose to use the State’s fist to do your dirty work, and then act so arrogantly dismissive of your intellectual betters such as von Mises and Rothbard.

“Nor does nationalization necessarily mean ‘central planning.'” Hello! Supply and demand on the market has been replaced with a bureaucratic dictate in your system. Please explain how this is not central planning. If producers and consumers are not trading based on prices, how is production planned absent a central board? What planet are you living on?

Replace the word “oil” in your last statement with any other product or service and tell me this isn’t central planning.

Now and then the gullibility and economic naivety of the American public is unveiled in its full glory, namely, in the wool both corporate fascists and the politicians they partner with manage to pull over the ordinary citizen’s eyes.

Thus Bush’s “rebates”, which is nothing but a return to the tax-payer of his own money which he then must spend on higher fuel and food prices, which are both functions of higher oil prices.

In both cases the gain goes immediately back to the private oil companies and the politicians who tax them.

“Supply and demand on the market has been replaced with a bureaucratic dictate in your system”

You are not reading closely. Nothing of the kind.

At any rate, at the moment the spikes in oil prices are not supply and demand at all.

This is one of but many egregious flaws in current economic thinking.

Hofmeister, for example, recently argued that if Alaska and offshore drilling were not allowed by Congress, even higher oil prices would follow.

Since he is a human resources man, with a BA in political sceince, he may be just spouting what he is programmed to soput.

On the other hand what he spouts, and its implied cause and effect, is an arrant untruth. For, even if private oil companies were allowed to exploit Alaska and offshore, and the benefits accrued overnight (rather than after a decade), the private oil companies would still be selling at world market price.

Brace yourselves for what might be a perfect storm next year. Combine a stagnant economy with relatively high inflation, oil prices making everyone more than a little edgy, an aerial attack on Iran, a left-wing dolt in McCain making war across the earth or an even harder leftist in Obama pumping up tax rates–with both of them licking Israel’s boots, a witch’s brew of useless “green” regulations, and you have 1932 all over, or worse.

You also do not understand Bastiat, who was no ideologue, but a keen observer and analyst, as well as a systematic thinker. Nor did he think most of the Socialists were thieves, as you say–but mostly muddled economic thinkers insofar as they looked for purely statist and authoritarian solutions to economic problems.

So what was seen and not seen.

As muddled, indeed, as you seem to be in regard to multinational private oil companies, who, working with the Fed and the politicians, are stealing an enormous of every American’s money and are in the process of bankrupting the nation.

Stealing their own money as well, and that of their children and grandchildren, but in their case they are stealing so much more from the public at large that what they are losing is miniscule.

Yes, let them drill oil in Alaska and sell it at world market prices in collapsing USD (accelerating the collapse by the way, since the process is recursive).

Surely someone like Hofmeister will be able to skim enough to put away a tidy nest egg of several hundred million at least in Euros and Amstersdam (pardon the syllepsis).

It’s a bit analogous to the Likudites buying off American politicians with Americans’ own money, don’t you think?

Among other things, the Austrians and Hayek and the rest do not understand currency, nor that there is not such thing as a tangible, static market price for any commodity, based solely on “supply and demand”.

Nor is there, after Smith, any invisible hand.

Most importantly, if material self-interest is the whole story, and it is both immediate and convertible into some monetary instrument, the very wealthy and successful will always buy whatever “state” that is formed.

They also always manipulate any currency.

Indeed, it is a logical contradiction to argue either that they will not, or that those running the state will not be buyable, since they obviously have something to sell, if only their power and position.

So much for the idiocy of Rand, and also of John Locke and self-ownership. The latter makes much sense as the wholly predicateless “thing-in-itself.”

“… the Austrians and Hayek and the rest do not understand currency, nor that there is not such thing as a tangible, static market price for any commodity…”

No more further evidence is required to demonstrate your ignorance of the matter. Identify the Austrian or the Hayekian passage that postulates the existence of “tangible, static market price(s) for any commodity”. In all the time I’ve been coming here, it’s the arrogance and confidence you ooze when spouting off half-cocked that is the defining character of your public profile.

Eugene, I haven’t seen so much hand waving since the last good-bye party. It is you who do not understand Bastiat, von Mises or the rest of the true free-marketeers. Let me try to help you. Never noticed the free-market advocates claim prices are static, based on supply and demand (Mises claimed prices are always subjective). Your concept is daft but I am interested in where you read it. The wealthy would buy whatever state is formed? Many of the wealthy do work with the State, partially out of cupidity and partially of self-preservation (I be interested in seeing the fate of the first Big Oil exec who spilled the beans on the centgov’s extortion racket, as well as the true cost of oil if we factor in the cost of our empire that lords it over most of the oil-supplying countries). Get rid of the State and let the consumer and the business man make transactions as they can. Big Business steals? Exxon has its own IRS? Walmart forces me into its stores? GM duns me to pay for its military bases around the world? Gold standard in the hands of private institutions would minimize currency manipulations (history’s greatest counterfeiters have always been State structures. Nick some books about the Roman empire and John Law and give them a go.) Seems you see Bastiat as a quasi-libertarian – we can agree on that. But how does a limited state mesh with nationalization of one of the few remaining industries, Oil, in which American industries maintain some comparative edge? You believe that the devil State can be somehow tamed in the case of oil nationalization, and not wind up like the Mexican nationalization? Sorry to burst your oil bubble, but even in the ’70’s I learned in grad seminars how corrupt Pemex and Petrobras were, and how inevitable cronyism and wide-spread theft are in such settings (too much money and too much power by unaccountable elites locked into a monopoly). An oil exec (small company at odds with the big boys) explained how Mexico could have had a SOL similar to the US by the ’70’s if it had not nationalized the oil companies(Pemex was still using lots of Americans and US knowledge, but the inefficiency, malinvestment, waste, and theft was and is staggering). Eugene, oil is no more a ‘public resource’ than are gold, wheat, or any other commodity. It takes a load of work to discover, tap, pump, and transport. The State, not the public, owns the oil in the same way it owns my house (by regs and property taxes). The State’s ownership is merely a parasitical one backed by superior firepower. The State produces nothing but war and tax slavery. It is also good at pitting various groups against one another, whether domestically or internationally. The oil industry is just about an arm of the centgov anyway. But for a moment lets say you get your nationalization. You will not charge the world market price (distorted as it is by various centgovs). If the price of US oil is less than foreign oii, we get a huge incentive to get exemptions to send it abroad, or smuggle it out (great, more fedcops to keep oil at home). Now we have shortages at home. If more is charged for the oil to keep it off foreign markets, why nationalize it in the first place? Solution is to get the centgov out of the oil industry, save oil by reducing the appetite of its greatest consumer, the US centgov (bring home all overseas troops, make the Navy a coastal defense force only and dismantle or sell every foreign base), and let the individual states decide who drills where. The moral of this story is also it’s not the right of the State to steal the oil companies from their executives, managers, and stockholders. Please re-read your von Mises, Rothbard, and even throw in de la Boetie. I appreciate your polite response (and scholarship) above even though you are full of little green apples when it comes to economics. And I do enjoy most of your posts that trash the State regarding its imperial machinations. To your Health. ST

Your second paragraph is spot-on (harsh, but concise and true). Please don’t be too hard on EC. At least he professes opposition to Leviathan and often makes sense in matters other than economics. Given time he may shape up. Perhaps he is a secret Misean testing our understanding? Freedom. ST

Bush’s terms are rapidly approaching the end. It is my hope the miseries he has foisted domestically and internationally are approaching the end, as well. I will not hold my breath, however. As I listen to those who intimate they are better than Bush at doing his job, I wonder what they mean. Will the winner foist a greater police state on us? Kill more people who have done us nothing? Make sure all children are left behind in gulags that should be labelled “indoctrination camps”? Etc, etc, etc. If all we can muster are a warmonger and a socialist enabler among our 300+ millions for “leadership”, it is no wonder we look around and wonder what has happened to us and our freedoms.

EC, I read Bastiat’s “The Law” several years ago, but I am still struck with the emotional contempt that he held for those who wish to rule over other men, overriding individual ownership of property with the whims of princes and bureaucrats who view us as playthings to be experimented with. Whatever label you wish to place upon Bastiat’s tombstone, his contempt for government and idiotic socialist schemes was parallel to what I encountered in reading Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. I am not in a cult nor do most self described austrians seek to be in one, so differences of opinion on the millions of grey areas are expected amongst these philosophers. None of these people ever said anything that would have indicated they supported nationalizing the oil industry, because they were all very smart people.

All three recognized that a fiat, fractionalized banking, centrally organized monopoly of the monetary system was a pretty bad thing. Most Austrians agree with this…I have never heard a good argument arguing to the contrary. I’ve heard plenty of arguments between austrians arguing the best way to fix the monetary system, but the only people I’ve heard saying this current system is great are uneductated on the topic, unwilling to debate the topic, shills or all three.

Nationalizing the oil industry is a idiotic idea, and if it is done(fear not) it will be done “rationally” ….it is just that the people putting the scheme into place will be doing it to fulfill certain goals opposed to what most people in this country would want. It is you who is naive if you think otherwise.

EC, we are glad you are against Leviathan! We all hope you continue to help us fight the warmongering plunderers. If you must, you can keep calling us naive, at least your not calling us anti-semites! However, can you tell us why you think it is optimal for the people of this country to give a private group the monopoly power to conjure new quantities of money and lease it out at rates that it subjectively sets in secret meetings? it doesn’t make sense to me or a lot of Austrians.

We must be reading different Bastiats. He surely does not exude contempt for the Socialists of his time, and indeed many times indicates that he shares the same goals.

In one essay he goes out of his way to compliment the Socialists he often worked with.

Rather he refuses to accept the illogic of economic schemes that work exactly against those goals and that exchange state domination by one group for state domination by another.

You are right exactly that he opposes anything but a minimal state power, but he opposes it on purely rational grounds and on a case by case basis.

Why does one suppose the oil companies and their politicians are not opposed to schemes involving corn-based ethanol? It is very simple: growing corn in the United States is petroleum-based. As a consequence turning it into fuel is economically inefficcient, but continues to consume petroleum in the form of fertilizer, insecticide, and fuel for machinery.

Talking about “supply and demand” as if it has anything to do with privately owned oil is absurd.

The corporate fascists controlling the metastasizing US government should really change their name to the candlemakers’ guild.

At any rate, offshore oil and Alaska are public resources, owned by the American people as a whole, as is the state itself.

At some point the ideologues who have fallen for the nonsense of Rand and Hayek and the other Austrians should really put that part of their “ownership” into the equation.

There are also aspects of what is seen and not seen that are pertinent, especially over time.

Might one also mention that “Captialism”, which has very little to do with free enterprise or individual rights, was invented by Karl Marx?

The subtilty of Bastiat, who was no ideologue, may escape many who are.

There is no such passage because, as with Smith, it is assumed, and what is assumed, partly by virtue of the nature of any currency, and partly for other more complex reasons, does not exist any more than does the “invisible hand.”

One of these days you really must read Ricardo with an open mind, including his essay on gold.

It is too much to wish perhaps, that you are also familiar with Marcuse, or, as example of the ultimate perversion of the idea of “market”, with Jacob Bernays.

In fact, the Marxists, when not mesmerized by their own traditional ideology, are excellent and penetrating critics.

When it comes to solutions, on the other hand, like the cake mix, it pays to add an egg.

“Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasnâ€™t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin– always hoping their subjects wouldnâ€™t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

Ron Paul

As an historical and economic analysis, this, like the Austrians Paul says he follows, is outright laughable.

“…money developed naturally in the marketplace”–I cannot read this without smiling.

Speaking of the candlemakers’ guild, most Americans don’t seem to realize that they have close to the worst cell phone infrastructure in the world. Nor, even if most of them realize it, are they economically equipped to figure out why. Most important, they, many of them, fall for the idiocy that what they have in the way of that infrastructure, is the glorious result of “the free market and competition”, when it is exactly the reverse.

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: ‘I.’

Eugene,
Talking about â€œsupply and demandâ€ as if it has anything to do with privately owned oil is absurd. Agreed to a point. The absurdity is caused by the centgov’s interference.

At any rate, offshore oil and Alaska are public resources, owned by the American people as a whole, as is the state itself. No, the centgov claims the offshore oil, but it did not put it there, nor has it access to it unless quasi-private companies bring it up and deliver it. Until that happens the oil might as well be on the moon. I am aware of oil leasing but the leases do not make oil a public resource (air is possibly a public good, must think about it a bit). As I posted above, by your logic all resources are public The American people own neither state nor land – the centgov claims ultimate possession. Ask one of the American people if he can transfer ownership of his slice of state pie, work it without gov interference, or deed it to his heirs.

EC, you are a mighty magician. You wave your hand, and poof!, this is absurd. You wave your hand again, and poof!, that is absurd. You write were as if your every word is received wisdom, you offer little to support your positions, and ignore and talk past folks trying to make sense of your pronunciementos. You need to stop high-hatting everyone and finally ante up. Liberty. ST

You fellows, like the Austrians, have never examined either the concept â€œmarketâ€, nor â€œsupply and demandâ€, nor have you any idea of what â€œmonetary economy meansâ€.

It is exactly that naivety that has allowed the present collapse to occur under the empty rubrics â€œprivatizationâ€ and â€œcapitalism.â€

The Austrians were also quite ignorant of economic history, including the economic history of the ancient world.

Paul is a hilarious example of sham Libertarianâ€“his whole medical career is based on state certification, pure and simple.

More hand-waving and no supporting arguments, just statements about the callowness, ignorance, and yes, absurdity of the Austrian school. Is it worth it for someone to refute this fellow’s bafflegas, or is it just a waste of time?

EC, your shot at RP is delightful. He has to undertake licensure in order to legally practice his craft and this makes him a fraud? So no one can be a libertarian until the State fades away? Please, EC, you’re really a professional clown, right?

First, I agree with Daryl…9-11 Was something OTHER than what the media PRESENTED it 2B. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++SLANDER is NOT saying bad things about someone, It is SAYING things that are UNTRUE…..The Yoo memo….And didn’t bush himself say (many times) he wanted those prosecuting HIS “WAR on TERROR” to have “ALL the TOOLS” And if anyone’s big mouth “SLANDERED ” the USA it was that Chinese CARPET BAGGER Jon Yoo with his “the president can crush your child’s testicles…..and there is nothing (in law) to stop him….For BAD PRESS AND SLANDER, this is a tough act to follow….YOO go jon…and where it stopz NO one KNOWS–GET him OUT of Berkley, USA. Deport him to China; where his totalitarian heart can rest EASY……..

Nor do I intend to give you a detailed analysis of your various unquestioned assumptions for free.

Well, thank goodness you believe in at least this tiny slice of the free-market. I cannot imagine the price you place on your detailed analysis (but I surely do know its worth). EC, fess up – you copy your codswallop from a large book collection of Keynes-Samuelson cant, don’t you? I enjoy a good piece of fiction myself.

Please keep serving up the slow curves – I need the batting practice.

Ok, Ok, I’ll try to stop stealing candy from a baby, but EC is hilarious.

Comparing the policies of our President, however much you may disagree those policies, to Nazi Germany, is at the very least unwarranted hyperbole. To be more accurate, it is an utterly preposterous exaggeration. What I don’t understand is why people can’t forcefully disagree with the President and his policies without name-calling and comparing him to Hitler.

Whether you like George Bush or you can’t stand the sight of him, the fact of the matter is, he is still the President of the United States and millions of your fellow Americans voted for him. When you mock and disresprect him–as oppossed to simply disagreeing with his polices–you are, in effect, disrespecting not the man himself but the office of the Presidency and thus, all the millions of your fellow Americans who voted for him, and thus America itself.

It is time for people to grow up and to be able to have an adult level discussion without using insulting and degrading language towards the President. For example, personally, I am not supporting Mr. Obama and I don’t trust him one bit, based on the nefarious people he has associted with. HOWEVER, if Mr. Obama wins the election he will have my full support and I will respect him for the office that he holds. Even though I will vote against him and work hard to see that he not be elected, if he wins I will respect him. If he walks into a room and I am seated, I will rise. I will respect the will of the American people. Is it too much to ask to do that with regard to our current President? If you think he is a criminal then get your Congressman to vote for impeachment, but unless and until then, start showing some respect.

I find it striking how people are so quick to invoke the name of Hitler in order to disparage someone they don’t like.

One had thought the problem was ignorance. The only remaining question is whether your stupidity is natural or a consequence of your holding fast to a seriously wanting ideology. In many cases it comes to the same thing.

The condition of the American medical profession at the close of the Civil
War was, in almost every particular, significantly different from that which
obtains today. The profession was, throughout the country, unlicensed and
anyone who had the inclination to set himself up as a physician could do so,
the exigencies of the market alone determining who would prove successful
in the field and who not. Medical schools abounded, the great bulk of which
were privately owned and operated and the prospective student could gain
admission to even the best of them without great difficulty. With free entry
into the profession possible and education in medicine cheap and readily
available, large numbers of men entered practice. Indeed in 1860 the census
data indicate that the country possessed over 55,000 physicians, or 175 per
100,000 population, almost certainly the highest number of doctors per
capita of any nation in the world.’

Hamowy, The Early Development of Medical Licensing Laws in the United States,1875-1900

Just as one cannot seem to recall Doctor Paul doing his Constitutional duty as a Congressman, and standing up foursquare for the immediate impeachment of the criminals Bush and Cheney, somehow one must have missed the good doctor’s “Libertarian” lecture on state decertification of physicians.

The irony is that historically such a discursus, though pertinent across the board, is particularly pertinent to the present state-enforced medical monopolies in “obstetrics” and “gynecology”.

But one has neither the time nor the inclination to explain why and how to those who do not already know it.

One supposes he is much too busy with “historical” accounts of how money developed naturally from markets, or, even more riveting a subject for the good doctor seemingly, gold.

Tim,
Two questions: 1) Is the will of the American people, however fraudulently it may have been obtained, above the will of the Iraqi people when it comes to their country? The vast majority of Iraqs want the Americans to leave. Will you respect that?
2) A German pastor called Bonhoeffer was part of a plot to kill Hitler. Was he wrong? Hitler was his country’s ruler and used an election victory and fraud to hold onto power.Shouldn’t Hitler have been respected rather than killed?

Hitler annexed country after country in Europe claiming, like Bush, that he was doing that to save the people of those nations – Checkoslavia and Austria – from their rulers. American policies in the middle east have led to many civilian deaths This is not any different from the way people died in Gas Chambers. So a comparison to Hitler is not so far out.
George Kurian

So when LBJ lied about the Tonkin Gulf attack and started a war that killed a couple million Vietnamese and 56,000 Americans, we should have mindlessly supported him because he was the president? Why can’t we call him a piece of disgusting detritus?

When Wilson manuevered us into WWI “to make the world safe for democracy,” getting 116,000 Americans killed and guaranteeing another World War, we should have mindlessly supported him because he was the president? Why can’t we call him a piece of disgusting detritus?

When Bush junior lied us into the Iraq war getting more than 4000 Americans killed for nothing, anywhere from a quarter to a million Iraqis killed, and a couple million more turned into refugees (the count goes on for all categories), we should have mindlessly supported him because he was the president? Given that America under Bush has just broken the number one Nuremberg trials charge against the Nazis–waging aggressive war–it seems to me that sane Americans have more than just a “policy difference” with Bush. Why can’t we call him a piece of disgusting detritus?

You’re damn right when I mock Bush I mock my fellow Americans, especially after they re-elected this buffoon smeared with the blood of innocents. How corrupt and stupid can you get? And what kind of American advocates that we lick the boots of whatever murderous quarter-wit gets into the White House? I can’t help but think that early Americans would line up for miles just to stooge-slap a disgusting little toady like you, Tim. Pathetic.

Let me end with a quote uttered by Lord Acton in a somewhat different context: “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

Eugene, it makes no sense for us to continue this sterile back and forth. You come on this site to make unsupported statements, declare the brilliant life works of intellectual giants whose work you have probably not read and that you definitely do not understand, make obscure and vague references to arcania, refuse to support your statements with anything more than moonshine, call people that ask you to post logically “stupid”, “naive”, and “ignorant”.
There is no more reason for you to post your economic fufaugh here, since this is not a site to debate the matter but when you are asked by other poster and myself to explain your positions instead of measured replies we get more magisteria and insults.
I am sorry for have insulted you yesterday, because to have done so was unchristian and unedifying. Look, EC, I espouse freedom and liberty coupled with responsibility and tradition. I believe the State, and its proto- forms, has had over 5000 years to get its act together but has instead culminated in the Century of Genocide, the 20th. You do not. I believe the State has no business telling us how to do anything with its brief remaining life (except enforce contracts and protect person and property). You do not. I believe the State is a Frankenstein monster that is in its death agonies that may yet destroy us all. You do not. I believe the State is the closest version of the Anti-Christ we will get until the real one arrives. You do not. I believe neither you nor anyone else on this site have the right to force me (or anyone else) to do anything as long as I do not harm to you and yours, even if my folly leads to my undoing. You do not. I am a Christian freemarket anarchist, proud of my principles but ashamed of my numerous shortcomings. I thank God regularly for this site, http://www.lewrockwell.com, http://www.mises.org, and others for showing me the alternative to statist folly. I hope that you will use your considerable intellectual assests to break free of your statist mental prison. You are a well meaning chap, but please tone down the pedantry. Please remember that we are guests here at the sufferance of the wonderful people of antiwar.com. As always, my apologies in advance for any typos. ST

As a Vietnam-era veteran, I think it is a great disgrace to claim as slander against America the criticism of torture and other illegal, harmful-to-the-point-of-murder methods that are intended to, and quite unlawfully do, circumvent constitutional principles and our international treaties. That’s why we have a constitution, bill of rights and sane international agreements like the Geneva Convention. When our soldiers are treated as we have treated those in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and rendition, the enemy is barbaric, we are protecting America, and to object is slander. Well, if dissent, sane objection against this behavior, and defense of the rule of law is slander, let us utter the worst, most malicious sort; if this be treason, then make the most of it (Patrick Henry). In this spirit, please take a good look at my slander of our leaders, on my blog showcasing sans blackout Ms. Rice’s misdeeds and also the malfeasance of our military, at http://www.wrathofmcgrath.com

The US Federal Reserve is examining the Nordic bank nationalisations of the 1990s as a possible interim solution to the US financial crisis.

The Fed has been criticised for its rescue of Bear Stearns, which critics say has degenerated into a taxpayer gift to rich bankers.

A senior official at one of the Scandinavian central banks told The Daily Telegraph that Fed strategists had stepped up contacts to learn how Norway, Sweden and Finland managed their traumatic crisis from 1991 to 1993, which brought the region’s economy to its knees.

It is understood that Fed vice-chairman Don Kohn remains very concerned by the depth of the US crisis and is eyeing the Nordic approach for contingency options.

Scandinavia’s bank rescue proved successful and is now a model for central bankers, unlike Japan’s drawn-out response, where ailing banks were propped up in a half-public limbo for years.

While the responses varied in each Nordic country, there a was major effort to avoid the sort of “moral hazard” that has bedevilled efforts by the Fed and the Bank of England in trying to stabilise their banking systems.

Norway ensured that shareholders of insolvent lenders received nothing and the senior management was entirely purged. Two of the country’s top four banks – Christiania Bank and Fokus – were seized by force majeure.

“We were determined not to get caught in the game we’ve seen with Bear Stearns where shareholders make money out of the rescue,” said one Norwegian adviser.

“The law was amended so that we could take 100pc control of any bank where its equity had fallen below zero. Shareholders were left with nothing. It was very controversial,” he said.

Stefan Ingves, governor of Sweden’s Riksbank, said his country passed an act so it could seize banks where the capital adequacy ratio had fallen below 2pc. Efforts were also made to protect against “blackmail” by shareholders.

Mr Ingves said there were parallels with the US crisis, citing the use of off-balance sheet vehicles to speculate on property. All the Nordic banks were nursed back to health and refloated or merged.

The tough policies contrast with the Fed’s bail-out of Bear Stearns, where shareholders forced JP Morgan to increase its Fed-led rescue offer from $2 to $10 a share. Christopher Wood, chief strategist at brokers CLSA, says the Fed’s piecemeal approach has led to “appalling moral hazard”.

“Shareholders have been able to lobby for a higher share price only because the Fed took over the credit risk on $30bn of the investment bank’s dubious paper. The whole affair also amounts to a colossal subsidy for JP Morgan,” he said.

One suggests you review your own empty, naive and immature posts before criticizing responses. Your misfires are also laughable and immature.

One could easily cite a long list of “economic” events, patterns, and so forth, ancient and modern, East and West that, chances are, you are wholly ignorant of, as are most American “economists”, especially the naively Anglocentric, who still think Smith or Steuart originated “economics”.

One could also make a detailed critique of the current concept of “supply and demand”, which though near universal, is flawed.

Why bother?

At this point and here it would be an utter waste of time, and to the young and untutored, as you seem to be, considered “arcania”.

What emanates from lewrockwell is superb in some areas, giddily naive and untutored in others.

The naive is usually based on flawed and unexamined ideology.

When and where did the “state” exist, for example? The question was long ago answered, but few moderns have any idea that it is even a pertinent question.

I find no false apprehensions, to work upon mine understanding; and yet they see, that invisibly, and I feele, that insensibly the disease prevailes. The disease hath established a Kingdome, an Empire in mee, and will have certaine Arcana Imperii, secrets of State, by which it will proceed, and not be bound to declare them. But yet against those secret conspiracies in the State, the Magistrate hath the rack; and against the insensible diseases, Phisicians have their examiners; and those these employ now….

Society obviously must have farmers before it can eat, foresters, fishermen, miners, etc. before it can make use of actual resources; craftsmen before it can have manufactured goods; and merchants before they can be distributed. But once these exist, what need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic assemblies. Each man has only to be left to obtain what he wishes. Thus, when a commodity is very cheap it invites a rise in price; when it is very expensive, it invites a reduction. When each person works away at his own occupation, and delights in his own business, like water flowing downward, goods will naturally flow forth ceaselessly day and night without having been summoned, and the people will produce commodities without having been asked. Does this not tally with reason? Is it not a natural result?

Ch’ien Ssu-Ma

The image of Doctor Paul’s Three Happiness Golden Englightenment Economic Tonic, delivered fresh and westward to billions of yellow persons sitting in darkness–how not feel the chill of child eyeing the great star-filled vastness of the Milky Way on clear midwinter eve?

Ominously, it would appear that at least 30 percent of the voting general population still does, if the average of leading “public opinion polls” is to be believed. I’m surprised that this percentage is not considerably higher – although, taking into account the known biases and carelessness in sampling methodology built into most opinion polls, it might actually BE much higher. Given the palpable atmosphere of jingoistic belligerence among large segments of the general public, coupled with a zoological ignorance of both current events and the philosophy of liberty, I find it hard to believe that those still worshiping the shrubtard and drinking his every word as gospel isn’t resting at somewhere above 50 percent.

James, thank you for your temperate and respectfful correction. I shall attempt to maintain the high intellectual standards you demonstrate, and be more careful in my readings. Since I believe Bushco are demonic, anti-Christian genocidal maniacs, I thought that your remarks were not directed at this devil’s cabal, because you let them off so lightly. Freedom. ST

I DO aspire to use my noggin as something other than a hatrack, although all too frequently I fail, here and elsewhere. I try not to use the expression “a-i-n-t”, unless I am making a rhetorical point in person. I also attempt to be civil in my critiscms of others as well as to my replies to my critics, who are numerous and knowledgeable and all too often correct.

As to “How’s that Simon” I applaud your bravery in posting on this site, given the level of thoughfulness and maturity you bring to the table. Do keep up the good fight, and remember that in DC we have a common adversary. Freedom. ST

The topic here is, “Bush Slanders Freedom”. I did not reply to ANY post here by EC or anybody else for that matter. You do know how it works here, no? So, after reading you condescending posts, allow me to re-phrase my rude comment to you- “Go away, cantankerous FOOL!

James, thank you again for your level-headed correspondence. I only apologize once for a mistake I make, as I did to you above. Privilege of age and all that. I normally try to minimize my posting rancor (bad for the heart and soul), and I do admit to be cantankerous. Who is the fool here is debateable and I invite any more objective observers to way in regarding the matter. As for going away I think not, since I enjoy the posting ability the host so graciously extends me (despite my typos and numerous other mistakes) too much. I welcome you to have my posting privileges revoked by the webmaster – that is one of the wonderful qualities of such sites, anonymous exchange of ideas without worrying about any physical consequences for our comportment. You must in fairness agree that my posts are far less in length than others at this site, and there has been no call to remove the authors from this thread, despite profound rejection of their content and author. That you disagree with my content is your right and I respect it. I sometimes later disagree with it myself. I do appreciate your growing civility and look forward to your further comments, but I also recognise your right not to read my humble ruminations. Just trying to grow at a late age, I am. Liberty ST

First, let me say sorry for the juvenile name calling, politics can do that to me sometimes, my bad. I look forward to debating with you in the future. And yes, fair enough, if I were you I would not go away either. Your mistake was noted earlier, as you mentioned, and I appreciate it as well. I have only complained to moderators in the past when I have come across racist twits, which I am pretty sure, you are not. I also appreciate your honesty. So, I am leaving work early and I wish you and all others here a fine week-end!

Bush is not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mussolini — not any of the famous bad guys of the 20th century. He is bad in his own way. Moreover, even though he probably will leave office at the end of his term, no later president will forget his precedents. We have had Imperial Presidency since WW II; now we have Autocratic Presidency. Guantanomo may close but equivalents will spring up elsewhere. This is what a lot of Americans want. Moreover, the neo-cons as old boys network may die, but the mystical, messianic, nationalism they espouse will not disappear. The Religious Right will not disappear, either. It may jump from Dispensationalism (frying pan) to Reconstructionism (fire).

Nationalism: another opportunity for partisan idiocy.

As for mocking and dissing the current pres., why not? This is an old human tradition. Ordinary people did not hesitate to refer to Jiang Zemin, Li Peng, Chu Rongji with insulting nicknames or obscene gestures. The minority of voters who support Bush deserve mockery, too. Maybe they’ll learn some humility.

Constitutionally impeachment is quite simple. There are minimal requirements in regard to procedure or investigation. As Paul himself said in regard to Clinton’s impeachment, an impeachaable offense is what the House says it is by a majority vote.

Though I am deeply impressed by Kucinich’s profound and systematic analysis on many issues, quite apart from that, it is the following that impresses me in regard to what a United States Congressman doing his sworn constitutional duty is:

For the Neo-Cons and other right and left ideologues and anti-constitutionalists left and right who wish to invalidate the constitutional ban on ex post facto lex, it might be noted that impeachment is not lex, is exempt from the protections of jury trial, and is not subject to judicial appeal.

It turns out, therefore, that a case can easily be made that nothing prevents Congress from impeaching an office-holder after he has left office, and that this is not subject to the ex post facto ban.

Why impeach Bush after he has left office?

That’s easy, were Bush successfully impeached in 2009 beginning from the start of his term in January, 2002, all his acts in office would arguably be null.

Yes, yes–I know, to many that will seem like an outlandish idea from some far and distant planet.

On the other hand, it strikes one as quite strange that so many “conservative” Republicans start at the mere mention of the word “nationalization”, even in a national emergency.

When after the War between the States the Union emancipated slaves, who were property, in the the Border States and paid compensation, was that not a taking and a form of nationalization?

So letâ€™s think soberly about it. I have to think about the future. I have to weigh what this, the impact of this is going to be. And, by the way, you probably know, that there is such a thing as the retroactive impeachment processâ€¦If you introduced the resolution of impeachment after the person is gone.

Mr. Chief Justice, Counsel for the President and Distinguished Members of the Senate:

One of the most memorable aspects of this proceeding was the solemn occasion wherein every Senator in this chamber took an oath to do impartial justice under the Constitution.

The President of the United States took an oath to tell the truth in his testimony before the grand jury, just as he had, on two prior occasions, sworn a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”â€¦.

The debate about impeachment during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 makes it clear that the Framers of the Constitution regarded impeachment and removal from office on conviction as a remedy for a fundamental betrayal of trust by the President. The Framers had invested the presidential office with great powers. They knew that those powers could be – and would be – abused if any President were to violate, in a fundamental way, the oath he had sworn to faithfully execute the nation’s laws.

For if the President did so violate his oath of office, the covenant of trust between himself and the American people would be brokenâ€¦.

Trust, not what James Madison called the “parchment barriers” of laws, is the fundamental bond between the people and their elected representatives, between those who govern and those who are governed. Trust is the mortar that secures the foundations of the American house of freedom. And the Senate of the United States, sitting in judgment in this impeachment trial, should not ignore, or minimize, or dismiss the fact that the bond of trust has been broken, because the President has violated both his oaths of officeâ€¦.

No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the President and the people; between the three branches of our government; and between the country and the world.

For to break that covenant of trust is to dissolve the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice. And to break that covenant of trust by violating one’s oath is to do grave damage to the rule of law among us.

That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice. To erode that bedrock is to subscribe, to a “divine right of kings” theory of governance, in which those who govern are absolved from adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are accountable.

We must never tolerate one law for the Ruler, and another for the Ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to Flanders Field, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Panmunjon, Saigon and Desert Stormâ€¦.

The rule of law is one of the great achievements of our civilization. For the alternative to the rule of law is the rule of raw power. We here today are the heirs of three thousand years of history in which humanity slowly, painfully and at great cost, evolved a form of politics in which law, not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies.

We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law: a moral code for a free people who, having been liberated from bondage, saw in law a means to avoid falling back into the habit of slaves.

We are the heirs of Roman law: the first legal system by which peoples of different cultures, languages, races, and religions came to live together in a form of political community.

We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the freeman of England began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism.

We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as the means for governing a society of free men and women.

We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when the Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor – sacred honor – to the defense of the rule of law.

We are the heirs of a tragic civil war, which vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others.

We are the heirs of the 20th century’s great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history. The “rule of law” is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good. The rule of law is like a three legged stool: one leg is an honest Judge, the second leg is an ethical bar and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable in a truly democratic societyâ€¦.

The Framers of the Constitution also knew that the Office of President of the United States could be gravely damaged if it continued to be unworthily occupied. That is why they devised the process of impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. It is, in truth, a direct process. If, on impeachment, the President is convicted, he is removed from office – and the Office itself suffers no permanent damage. If, on impeachment, the President is acquitted, the issue is resolved once and for all, and the Office is similarly protected from permanent damageâ€¦.

Political prisoners know that this is about the rule of law – the great alternative to arbitrary and unchecked state power.

The families of executed dissidents know that this is about the rule of law – the great alternative to the lethal abuse of power by the state.

Those yearning for freedom know that this is about the rule of law – the hard-won structure by which men and women can live by their God-given dignity and secure their God-given rights in ways that serve the common good.

If they know this, can we not know it?

If, across the river in Arlington Cemetery, there are American heroes who died in defense of the rule of law, can we give less than the full measure of our devotion to that great causeâ€¦.â€

Henry Hyde Excerpted [I left out one or two more amphibious landings, etc.]

Perhaps, you misunderstood. Of course, one can and should loudly and forcefully disagree with any President, if that President has polices you believe to be unjust.
My only point was that you can do it in a dignified way, where you still show at least a modicum of respect for office he holds.

Both ancient Greeks and Chinese had their tripods, Dominionists and Reconstuctionists, as well as Henry Hyde, favor the “three-legged stool” apparently:

The dominionist’s kingdom must be advanced on Earth by gaining control
of governments (State), utilizing business (corporations) and
partnering with social sector (church) institutions….Peter Drucker,
the management guru, was instrumental in overseeing the implementation
of this agenda….Warren was mentioned by Drucker, as were a number of
of other evangelical leaders such as Bob Buford of Leadership network.
Buford trained an entire generation of aspiring megacurch pastors
in Drucker’s social philosophies. The megachurches are based on the Drucker
corporate business model. Drucker’s ideas also undergird the faith-based
(Church-State) movement which has been politically championed by
the neo-conservatives in Washington. Dominionism is significantly breaking
down the walls between Church and Corporations. In brief the three-legged
stool of dominionism looks like this:

Corporate + State = Fascism
State + Church = Faith-based
Church + Corporate= Fusion – the Merchant Church

The son of a high level civil servant in Austria-Hungary â€“ his mother Caroline Bondi had studied medicine and his father Adolph Bertram Drucker was a lawyer â€“ Drucker was born in Vienna, the capital of Austria, in a small village named Kaasgraben (now part of the 19th district of Vienna, DÃ¶bling). He grew up in a home where intellectuals, high government officials and scientists would meet to discuss new ideas and ideals.[5] After Graduating from DÃ¶bling Gymnasium, Drucker found few opportunities for employment in post-Habsburg Vienna so he moved to Hamburg, Germany, first working as an apprentice at an established cotton trading company, then as a journalist, writing for the Ã–sterreichische Volkswirt (The Austrian Economist). Drucker then moved to Frankfurt where he took a job at the Daily Frankfurter General Anzeiger. While in Frankfurt, he also earned a doctorate in international law and public law from the University of Frankfurt in 1931. Among his early influences was the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, a friend of his fatherâ€™s, who impressed upon Drucker the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship.[6] Drucker also was influenced, in a much different way, by John Maynard Keynes, whom he heard lecture in 1934 in Cambridge. â€œI suddenly realized that Keynes and all the brilliant economic students in the room were interested in the behavior of commodities,â€ Drucker wrote, â€œwhile I was interested in the behavior of people.â€[7]

Indeed, over the next 70 years, Druckerâ€™s writings would be marked by a clear focus on relationships among human beings, as opposed to the crunching of numbers. His books were filled with lessons on how organizations can bring out the best in people, and how workers can find a sense of community and dignity in a modern society organized around large institutions.[8]

As a young writer, Drucker wrote two piecesâ€”one on the conservative German philosopher Friedrich Julius Stahl and another called â€œThe Jewish Question in Germanyâ€â€”that were burned and banned by the Nazis.[9] In 1933, Drucker left Germany for England. In London, he worked for an insurance company then as the chief economist at a private bank. He also reconnected with Doris Schmitz, an acquaintance from the University of Frankfurt. They married in 1934. (His wedding certificate lists his name as Peter Georg Drucker.[10]) The couple permanently relocated to the United States, where he became a university professor as well as a freelance writer and business consultant. (Drucker disliked the term â€œguru,â€ though it was often applied to him; â€œI have been saying for many years,â€ Drucker once remarked, â€œthat we are using the word â€˜guruâ€™ only because â€˜charlatanâ€™ is too long to fit into a headline.)[11]

In 1943, Drucker became a naturalized citizen of the United States. He taught at Bennington College from 1942-1949, then at New York University as a Professor of Management from 1950 to 1971. Drucker came to California in 1971, where he developed one of the country’s first executive MBA program for working professionals at Claremont Graduate University (then known as Claremont Graduate School). From 1971 to his death he was the Clarke Professor of Social Science and Management at Claremont Graduate University. The university’s management school was named the Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of Management (later known as the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management) in his honor in 1987. He taught his last class at the school in the Spring of 2002….

Gentlemen,
I think that Tim exhibits a particularly virulent form of that common-day malady (coined by Doctor-and-Diagnostician-in-Chief Jim Bovard) called the 9-11 Servility Reflex. Only Jim’s particular strain is the Authority Servility Reflex, which can be just as devastating although it has been plaguing mankind for much, much longer. Patients suffering Jim’s form of the disease usually utter such phrases as “we must obey authority” and “don’t rock the boat” and “show some respect for X” (a power-grabbing person) or “show respect for the Y” (some office that is available to X). In case anyone becomes confused about the particular symptoms of the disease, the patient with Authority Servility Reflex is utterly incapable of uttering the following sentence: “please, show some respect for this powerless individual, who cannot kick my ass and is doing something harmless that I despise and has been victimized by the majoritarian mob after that has been stirred up by that political (or religious) leader X.”

One movie, John Ford’s classic Cheyenne Autumn, featuring Navajo actors pretending to be Cheyenne, has an almost cult following in Navajo country.

Navajo members watching the movie today roar with laughter when Cheyenne leaders speak in Navajo, supposedly discussing treaties and tribal needs. What the Navajo actors in the film really said in somber tones generally concerned the size of the colonel’s privates (not the ones who march) or some equally disrespectful or bawdy double-entendre….

Subsequently, as the Dineh were removed from their farms by the “Relocation Commission” authorized by the US Senate at the behest of the revisions to the Public Law 93-531 introduced as S.1973-1 (1996 Partition) and S.1003 (2001 and 2005 accelerated removal of the Dineh by amendment) by Senator McCain, expanded Coal Mining Rights to their lands were granted to Peabody Western who with Bechtel Corp, have been mining the lands formerly occupied by the Dineh, and piping the coal to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada, which serves the Las Vegas and Reno, areas power needs. A map of the Mining and Piping operations are found depicted below.

[link above]

McCain must be some kind of Communist or Collectivist, right–like many Republicans and supposed “conservatives”.

Gee, imagine how much more quickly the Corporate Fascists would have emancipated the land had it been oil or gold rather than coal, eh?

Bikini Islanders attempting to overturn the recent dismissal of their billion-dollar compensation lawsuit against the United States government have received help from an unexpected source.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week on the rights of terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay could help the Bikini case, which is now pending in a U.S. federal appeals court, Bikini attorney Jonathan Weisgall says.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Lakhdar Boumediene case 5-4 that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention, which in legal language is a procedure known as â€œhabeas corpus,â€ said Weisgall, who is based in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. tested 23 nuclear weapons at Bikini, including â€œBravoâ€ in 1954, the largest American hydrogen bomb ever tested. The tests were conducted while the Marshall Islands was under a United Nations Trusteeship administered by the United States.

The Bikinians filed suit last year in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims seeking more than $1 billion in compensation, but the judge dismissed the claim earlier this year.

The recent Supreme Court decision is important for Bikini because the judges said a Defense Department alternative that stripped U.S. federal courts of jurisdiction to hear petitions from Guantanamo detainees was inadequate â€” a situation similar to the Bikini islanders who are battling the U.S. argument that U.S. courts should have no jurisdiction to hear their claims because an alternative mechanism already resolved nuclear testing compensation claims.

â€œThe court not only struck down the administrationâ€™s contention that the detainees have no rights but also said the system the (U.S.) administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate,â€ Weisgall said.

â€œAs with Guantanamo, the U.S. has plenary power over the Marshall Islands and is attempting to pretend otherwise in order to create a Constitution-free zone where none of its actions have consequences,â€ Weisgall said. â€œThe wrinkle here is that the U.S. entered into an â€˜agreementâ€™ with its wards and dependents, but the effect is similar to (the) Boumediene (case): the U.S. tried to arrange things so that the Bikinians’ claims cannot be heard by ordinary federal courts, but rather could only be heard by a specially created forum (the Nuclear Claims Tribunal) that would not meaningfully address those claims.â€

Shortly after the first Compact of Free Association came into effect in 1986, U.S. courts dismissed an earlier Bikini claim because the courts said the U.S. Congress had approved a political settlement that included establishing the Nuclear Claims Tribunal by giving it $45 million to satisfy unresolved nuclear test claims in the Marshall Islands.

The Tribunal awarded Bikini nearly $1 billion in damages and clean up funding as a result of the 23 U.S. nuclear tests, but paid only a small fraction of that amount for lack of funding.

Weisgall said the bottom line is that this Supreme Court decision â€œhelps us, but by no means turns the case into a slam dunk.â€

When after the War between the States the Union emancipated slaves, who were property, in the the Border States and paid compensation, was that not a taking and a form of nationalization?

Good question, EC, but I am unsure of the pertinence of it to Oil Nationalization. If your analogy were to hold true for both oil and chattel slavery, than you would have to argue that the oil industry was evil from its origin, that it cannot be allowed to continue, and that upon forced compensation from the centgov the industry would be abolished. Neither one of us is trying to make this case. That abolition was a taking I agree – my problem with it was that the centgov took money from the taxpayer to pay for compensation. I haven’t thought of another solution to compensation, though.

Your news scoops and quotes are superb. I also agree that the whole lot of the Politburo on the Potomac should be impeached, starting with Bush and Cheney. But as Butler Shaffer has written, when was the last time the Crips tried any of its members for criminal activity? Liberty. ST

Ach, Tim, you can’t show respect to an office. So you have to show it, if you think you should show it, to the office’s occupant. Thus you’re still saying that we should show respect to and speak respectfully of men who have caused a world of needless grief and pain. Set aside the thousands of American dead and wounded, the trillions spent to pay for the Iraq war, the irreparable damage done to our liberties and the Constitution, and the corruption of what’s left of the American mind. How can we ever make the Iraqis whole again? I disrespectfully beg to differ with your unAmerican belief in bootlicking.

Ok, last time I checked the Iraqis were glad we are there, and I’m getting my information directly from the marines that are over in Iraq not from the biased media. Bush is not like Hitler, yes Hitler claimed he liberated countries but then he took direct control of the country, Bush on the other hand has overthrown a dictator and set up a democracy were the Iraqi people are free to vote. We are not in Iraq so that we gain from it we are there as a selfless act to help the Iraqi people get their country back.

Well, more proof that this whole war and the administration’s position re: freedom of the press and the Constitution has been run or attempted to be run, like the Soviets, Chinese and other totalitarians would. In truth, they attempted to institute as official policy, in some instances with mmemos and legal advisory opinions, a tradition of torture and killing, an overarching executive, and secrecy and blackouts â€“ everything that we have always said we are better than. From Chinese Communist torture methods, to suppressing the freedom of the speech and press, this administration continues to act in the ways it and its antecedents have always lambasted foreign powers for doing. As a Vietnam vet and ardent defender of the Constitution, I must once again speak out about the blackout of seeing our war dead returned to us. To see life and war as it has really been waged, coffins and all, including the role of malfeasance played by the top military brass, see my blog, http://www.wrathofmcgrath.com

Slander is what you are doing… You don't even know the definition…. If you recall the CONGRESS overwhelmingly voted to go to war… Son did 16 other countries whom all had the same intelligence (oxymoron)…. You want to blame him, where was the rest of the corrupt politicians in Congress? Why don't you put your blame on the jerks that attack our innocent civilialians and blow up women and children…. Why don't you put the blame on the people in Congress who are sworn to protect the Constitution and then pass bills without reading them, and vote to give your tax money to corruption and organizations that have agendas… Why don't you turn your treasonous comments towards the people whom want to Socialize our society and eliminate personal responsibility…. Why don't you use facts in your comments instead of spewing a bunch of crap….